More 3-4 defense this year?

[mayoclinic]

Yeah it would be like a 5-2. But it would give you some more options becuase you have your ends standing up, and basically be like 3-4 outside linebackers. It would allow for more zone blitzes and stuff as you can drop into coverage much faster when you are standing up as opposed to the 3 point stance. I feel like you could get very creative from that formation like you said. Very easy to morph into different formations.

I described something like that in my Defensive Blueprint threads months ago. With the right personnel you can morph between a 5-2, 4-3 Under or Over, or 3-4.

Consider what you could do IF Jerel Worthy can develop into a multiple front player who can play the 3-tech, 4-3 Under LDE, or 3-4 DE positions:

Ninkovich/Hightower - Worthy - Wilfork - Easley - Jones

Mayo - Collins

With that line, if both "ends" play in an evenly spaced line with their hands in the dirt, you have a 5-2 front. That line can generate tremendous pressure inside and out, not even including Collins potentially crashing down behind Jones and Easley. Scary. Collins and Mayo have enough range to cover the second level, especially with a crackerjack secondary.

Move Ninkovich/Hightower out over the TE and stand them up, and shift the spacing a bit, and you have a 4-3 Under, with Nink/Hightower as the SAM and Worthy as the 4-3 LDE. Or you can stand up both Nink/Hightower and Jones and play a 3-4. You can probably bring Collins up on the line once in a while and play a 6-1, especially if you do something like drop Brandon Browner down into a robber role. And with Easley's versatility, you can probably even drop into a 2-5 semi-ameboid formation. All with the same personnel.

And that doesn't even cover the creative variations. Fire zone blitzes with Collins blitzing and one of the DEs dropping back into zone coverage. Cross-blitzes with both LBs coming, with or without a zone substitution. Double A-gap blitzes up the middle, on top of all of the penetration that Easley and Worthy create. Lots of creative stuff that you can do, especially if you have "a group of towering yet mobile DEs and 3 good-sized LBs with outstanding positional versatility", to quote Patchick.

Right now we're 1 player away from being able to do all of that: someone who can play the other 3-tech position, with the versatility to play 4-3 LDE and 3-4 DE at an acceptable level, and even 0/1 tech at times. I think that Worthy COULD just possibly be that player (I don't think Chris Jones is), but it will probably take time, so I wouldn't expect to see all of this right away. It could just be a pipe dream, but it's a neat vision if BB can pull it off.

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah it would be like a 5-2. But it would give you some more options becuase you have your ends standing up, and basically be like 3-4 outside linebackers. It would allow for more zone blitzes and stuff as you can drop into coverage much faster when you are standing up as opposed to the 3 point stance. I feel like you could get very creative from that formation like you said. Very easy to morph into different formations.

Just changing personel while staying in the 3-4 that I proposed could also make a huge difference. Against Peyton we could go Easley, Wilfork, Worthy(depending on how he plays) and we could get interior pressure, while Ninkovich and Jones rush from the outside. Against Vikings we could go Siliga, Wilfork and then another bigger more run stopping kind of guy.

The problem is that instead of Jones, Ninkovich and 2 DT types rushing the passer you have Jones OR Ninkovich rushing the passer with 3 DT types, and either your best or second best pass rusher in coverage.

 

[Marqui]

The problem is that instead of Jones, Ninkovich and 2 DT types rushing the passer you have Jones OR Ninkovich rushing the passer with 3 DT types, and either your best or second best pass rusher in coverage.

If that's a problem, why do teams ever run a 3-4 defense then?

 

[mayoclinic]

The problem is that instead of Jones, Ninkovich and 2 DT types rushing the passer you have Jones OR Ninkovich rushing the passer with 3 DT types, and either your best or second best pass rusher in coverage.

It's a numbers game. You obviously can't have Jones, Ninkovich, Hightower, Collins and Mayo all on the field AND 3 DTs (an 8 man front), so something has to give. In situations where having a 3rd DT is beneficial, I would personally see Ninkovich and Hightower platooning. That's not necessarily bad, in terms of distributing workload and snap counts. But certainly for right now, it's hard to find a 3rd DT who is likely to be more effective than either of those 2 guys.

 

[Ring 6]

If that's a problem, why do teams ever run a 3-4 defense then?

If it isn't why do teams run 4-3?

 

[Ring 6]

It's a numbers game. You obviously can't have Jones, Ninkovich, Hightower, Collins and Mayo all on the field AND 3 DTs (an 8 man front), so something has to give. In situations where having a 3rd DT is beneficial, I would personally see Ninkovich and Hightower platooning. That's not necessarily bad, in terms of distributing workload and snap counts. But certainly for right now, it's hard to find a 3rd DT who is likely to be more effective than either of those 2 guys.

If you are saying certain situations where the opponent is a heavy run based offense, OK, but as a base defense, I just don't see the logic of moving toward a defense that is designed to be better vs the run and worse vs the pass. The game is going the other way.

 

[Ring 6]

If that's a problem, why do teams ever run a 3-4 defense then?

Do you dispute that a defense that has Jones, Ninkovich, Easley and Wilfork rushing the passer is better vs the pass than a defense that rushes Siliga, Easley, Wilfork and either Jones or Ninkovich?

 

[mayoclinic]

If you are saying certain situations where the opponent is a heavy run based offense, OK, but as a base defense, I just don't see the logic of moving toward a defense that is designed to be better vs the run and worse vs the pass. The game is going the other way.

I agree that it probably won't be something you play the majority of the time. We'll be in sub most of the time anyway, and certainly against teams that are more pass oriented.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree that it probably won't be something you play the majority of the time. We'll be in sub most of the time anyway, and certainly against teams that are more pass oriented.

Now where I WOULD agree with this is if Easley could be an outside pass rushing force.
Then you could play him over the T and have 2 big men over the G/C and use Jones as a Willie McGinest type OLB (ie rush 100% of the time) and Hightower or Ninko as a Vrabel or Thomas type (cover as often as rush).
But I see Easley more as an inside guy, and think it would diminish his effectiveness greatly to put him outside over the T.
If this was 2003, I'd like your scheme, but in 2014, I gladly sacrifice some run D to be able to generate pass rush.

 

[Marqui]

Ninkovich, Easley and Wilfork rushing the passer is better vs the pass than a defense that rushes Siliga, Easley, Wilfork and either Jones or Ninkovich

Not necessarily, when you factor in the confusion and mismatches 3-4 alignments create.

And I think Chris Jones would be more likely to play 3-4 DE than Siliga.

 

[mayoclinic]

Now where I WOULD agree with this is if Easley could be an outside pass rushing force.
Then you could play him over the T and have 2 big men over the G/C and use Jones as a Willie McGinest type OLB (ie rush 100% of the time) and Hightower or Ninko as a Vrabel or Thomas type (cover as often as rush).
But I see Easley more as an inside guy, and think it would diminish his effectiveness greatly to put him outside over the T.
If this was 2003, I'd like your scheme, but in 2014, I gladly sacrifice some run D to be able to generate pass rush.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think that BB can pick his emphasis on a game by game basis, and it doesn't hurt to have the versatility. I also think Easley will be able to line up anywhere on the front line, though his starting point will likely be as a 3-Tech.

 

[Ring 6]

Not necessarily, when you factor in the confusion and mismatches 3-4 alignments create.

And I think Chris Jones would be more likely to play 3-4 DE than Siliga.

Confusion? NFL offenses know how to block a 34.
How does a 34 create mismatches?

 

[Ring 6]

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think that BB can pick his emphasis on a game by game basis, and it doesn't hurt to have the versatility. I also think Easley will be able to line up anywhere on the front line, though his starting point will likely be as a 3-Tech.

My hope is that Easley is never wider than a 3 Tech.

 

[mayoclinic]

My hope is that Easley is never wider than a 3 Tech.

I can't agree with you on this one. Certainly Easley's primary position will be as a 3-Tech. But his gap versatility is one of his biggest strengths, and I don't see a good reason not to take advantage of it from time to time.

 

[Ring 6]

I can't agree with you on this one. Certainly Easley's primary position will be as a 3-Tech. But his gap versatility is one of his biggest strengths, and I don't see a good reason not to take advantage of it from time to time.

I think he will be a beast inside, and moving him outside will reduce his effectiveness.

 

[hwc]

Aren't we fighting last year's wars? The base defense in the NFL (more than half the snaps) is 5 DBs. That means we aren't even looking at a "front 7" anymore. It's a "front six". What we really should be thinking is 2-4, 3-3, 4-2. I don't see the 4-2 as being that promising on passing downs.

Even in the classic 3-4's of old, you would pull the big fatty on passing downs and shuffle the Richard Seymour hybrid DE/DT types to the middle. Looks like to me that Belichick is loading up with young hybrid DT/DE types.

With 5 DBs and aggressive man/press coverage, how about a 2-4 with a rush package of Easley, Worthy, Ninkovitch, and Jones?

 

[Ivan]

I have absolutely no idea what Belichick is planning on doing with this defense but I'm really looking forward to finding out.

 

[VrabelJr]

I don't want Easley or Chris Jones going against anything other than a Center or Guard. They aren't long enough to go up against OTs. Easley might be able to get under an OT because of his quickness but it's not even worth the risk.

 

[Ring 6]

Aren't we fighting last year's wars? The base defense in the NFL (more than half the snaps) is 5 DBs. That means we aren't even looking at a "front 7" anymore. It's a "front six". What we really should be thinking is 2-4, 3-3, 4-2. I don't see the 4-2 as being that promising on passing downs.

Even in the classic 3-4's of old, you would pull the big fatty on passing downs and shuffle the Richard Seymour hybrid DE/DT types to the middle. Looks like to me that Belichick is loading up with young hybrid DT/DE types.

With 5 DBs and aggressive man/press coverage, how about a 2-4 with a rush package of Easley, Worthy, Ninkovitch, and Jones?

Well, no. We are talking about what defense they will play when not in nickel or dime.
Just because its 40% and nickel/dime was 60% doesn't make it irrelevant.